Diffusionism: A Uniformitarian Critique

Author(s): J. M. Blaut
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 77, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp.
30-47
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of American Geographers
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2569200 .
Accessed: 13/03/2012 20:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Association of American Geographers are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Annals of the Association of American Geographers.

http://www.jstor.org
Diffusionism:A Uniformitarian
Critique
J. M. Blaut

Departmentof Geography,Universityof Illinoisat Chicago, Chicago, IL 60680

Abstract. Diffusionism assumesthat(1) inventiveness diffusionaccountsfornearly

is rareand therefore
all significantculturechange and (2) certainplaces are permanentloci of inventionand thusare more
advanced and more progressivethanotherplaces. If, however,inventivenessand innovativenessare
assumedto be uniformly different
distributed, spatialmodelsemerge,different diffusionprocessesgain
salience, inadequacies of currentdiffusion-of-innovation theorybecome evident,and new hypotheses
aboutbroad-scaleculturechange are uncovered.This paperexaminesthestructure of diffusionism,
puts
forwarda nondiffusionist and employsthe alternativeto modifydiffusion-of-in-
alternativestructure,
novationtheoryand to argue five nondiffusionist hypothesesforculturehistoryand present-dayrural
development.

invention,innovation,culturalevolution,technologicalchange,
Key Words: diffusion,diffusionism,
colonialism,uniformitarianism.

DIFFUSIONISM is a way of lookingat the 1979, 164-71), and opposingviewpointsgained

worldthathas longinfluencedthinking in ge- favor,particularlyamong those culturalanthro-
ographyand social thought.Its classical formwas pologistsand culturalgeographerswho defended
describedby Malinowski(1927, 31) as the belief the integrity of folkcultureand who understood
"thatculturecan be contractedonlyby contagion "tradition"to be dynamicand rational(see, e.g.,
and thatman is an imitativeanimal." In other Kniffen1965). But Eurocentrism retainedits he-
words, culture change does not arise autono- gemonyover mostsocial thought,and the "folk-
mouslyin mosthumancommunities: itcomesfrom urbancontinuum"remainedin essence a concept
without,via diffusion.But diffusionitselfmust of one-waydiffusion.
have a source, and classical diffusionism postu- Diffusionismhas become reinvigorated,pri-
latedthatsome places are permanent, naturalcen- marilybecause itfitswiththestancethatprogress
tersof creativityand invention. Even theopponents for the Third World consists in accepting the
of classical diffusionism tendedto acceptitsmain "'modernizing"diffusion of multinational capital-
propositionthatEurope is the world's source of ism and the materialtraits,ideas, and sociopolit-
culturallysignificant innovations. ical behaviorassociatedwithit. The ideologyof
Classical diffusionism was stronglythoughnot modernization has receivedconsiderablescientific
thoroughlycriticized.Its most salient form,the criticism,and some writershave associateditwith
"'extremediffusionism"thatattributed almostall diffusionism (e.g., Blaikie 1978; Blaut 1970, 1977;
culturaloriginsto diffusionand claimedto finda Brookfield1975; Chilcote1984; Frank1969). But
singlefountainhead forcivilization
(see, e.g., Smith diffusionism in its modernformhas not as yet
1933) was fairlydisposed of (see Childe 1951; been systematically describedand criticized,nor
Harris 1968; Kroeber 1937; Leaf 1979; Lowie has the full extentof its influencebeen recog-
1937). A few geographersand anthropologists nized.
continuedto acceptpartsofthedoctrine,however, In thispaperI describediffusionism and outline
such as theclaim thatNew Worldculturesdid not an alternative structure,a way of theorizingabout
inventagriculture and othercivilizinginnovations culturechange thattakes account of spatial dif-
on theirown but receivedthemvia transoceanic fusionbut does not succumb to diffusionism.I
diffusion (Carter1968; Edmonson1961). The view also arguethatthe nondiffusionist alternativehas
thatmostculturesand mostpeople are uninventive usefulimplications fora wide rangeof geographic
was attackedby Radin(1965) and others(see Leaf theories.I suggestsome ways to eliminatediffu-

Anniialsof the Association of American Geographers, 77( 1). 1987. pp. 30-47
?DCopyright
1987by Associationol AmericanGcographers

30
 Diffusionism
sionismfromthe partof spatial diffusiontheory
thatrelatesto agriculturaldevelopment in theThird
World,and I look at a fewof thelargerproblems
in historicalgeographyin whichan explicitlynon-
diffusionistapproachcan be helpful.The project
as a whole is best describedas a critiqueof dif-
fusionism,butit is a schematiccritiquelimitedby
the space available in a journal article.In partic-
ular,I do notcriticizediffusionist writingsexcept
wherethiscannotbe avoided in the contextof a
theoreticalargument, and I say littleaboutthehis-
toryof diffusionism in geographyor in general.
Structureof Diffusionism
Diffusionismis a large and complex doctrine
thathas influencedmanydisciplinesand countless
argumentsfor the past 150 years or so. The es-
sentialstructureof diffusionism is quite simple.
Fromtwo axiomaticpropositionsitconstructs two
landscapes,one a two-sector
interchangeable space,
the othera space witha continuousgradientbe-
tween two poles. Finally, it describesthe prop-
ertiesof thetwo sectorsand of thetwopoles (plus
gradationsbetween)and thetransactions thatflow
in bothdirections,witha set of elementary argu-
ments,six of which are crucial and will be dis-
cussed here.
Assume a landscape withmanycommunities.
(I use the word communityto designate a discrete
social space at any scale, e.g., a settlementor a
cultureregion.)A novel traitappearsin one com-
munity.Later,the same traitappears in a second
community.The second communityeither in-
ventedthetraitforitself(a case of whatis called
independent invention)or acquireditfromthefirst
community(a case of diffusion).Thereafterthe
traitappearsin othercommunities,and each new
appearanceis explained as a further instanceof
independent inventionor diffusion.So farso good.
But supposenow thatwe wishto predictwhere
in thislandscapesome othernovel traitwill make
its initialappearance.Is it reasonableto suppose
thatthecommunity thatinventedthefirsttraitwill
inventall subsequenttraitsas well? This wouldbe
likelyonlyiftwoadditionalassumptionsobtained:
(1) therole of diffusionis moreimportant thanis
thatof independent invention(thereis littleinven-
tivenessin thislandscape);and (2) thecommunity
thatinventedthefirsttraithas a greatercapability
thando the othercommunitiesof inventingtraits
in general. If both these assumptionshold true,
thensubsequenttraitinventions shouldcome from
31
thisone community, whichthusbecomestheper-
manentcenterforinvention and innovation forthis
landscape; thereafter, the appearanceof new in-
novationselsewherein thelandscapewouldbe the
resultof a diffusion processoriginating in our sin-
gle inventivecommunity.
This belief- thatchangesare producedby dif-
fusionratherthan(ordinarily)by independentin-
ventionand thatcertainplaces are the permanent
centersof innovation- is diffusionism.Diffu-
sionismat the worldscale usuallyconsidersEu-
rope or the West to be the permanentcenterof
inventionand innovation,althoughthisgenerali-
zationneedsto be qualifiedas to historicalepoch.
(Classical diffusionistsconceived the center,
"civilization," to be Europe or northwestern Eu-
ropeor,forracists,"theLandsoftheWhiteRace."
Moderndiffusionists tendto view thecenteras the
developedcapitalistcountries,Japanhavingbeen
recentlyadmittedto the centralsector,which is
stillcalled "the West" in line withdiffusionism's
theoryof history and culture.)At theregionalscale
diffusionism considersthepartof a regionthatis
most "Europeanized," "Westernized," "mod-
ernized," or "cosmopolitan," and perhapsmost
"progressive," "innovative," or "rational," to
be the centerof inventionand innovation.Inno-
vationsthenspreadbydiffusion to the"traditional
areas," the "folk societies," the "backward re-
gions," and so forth.Notetheimplicationthatthe
permanentcenteris always more advanced than
the otherpartsof the region(or of the world) as
it is always emittinginnovationsthatare adopted
onlylaterelsewhere.Diffusionists oftencarrythis
matterof comparativesynchronic levels of devel-
opmentone stepfurther: thesocietiesmostdistant
fromthe centerare the most backwardand the
mostancient;theyare sometimesthought of as the
"contemporary ancestors"of the societiesat the
center,as thoughto traveloutwardin space is to
travelbackwardin time. Thus diffusionism is in
a double sense elitist:the centeris at all times
moreprogressivethanis the periphery,and it is
at all timesmore advanced, thatis to say, more
civilized.The classicalpositionwas enunciatedby
Ratzel (1896, 179): "How muchmorethe inter-
course betweenlands and islandshas contributed
to the enrichment of men's stockof culturethan
has independent invention . ... It
seems . . . correctto creditthe intellectof 'nat-
ural races' withgreatsterility
in all thatdoes not
touchthe most immediateobjects of life." Here
are thetwodiffusionists
explicitly assumptions that
inventionis rareand thatmostpeoples are unin-
32 Blaut
ventive,and hereimplicitly thedoubleelitism:the
"naturalraces" are backwardand theyare unpro-
gressive. Today "natural races" would be re-
placed by "traditionalcultures."
The elementarystructureof diffusionism is a
two-sectorspace at any geographicalscale and
historicaldepth. Six arguments(possibly more)
describe the propertiesof each sector and the
transactionsbetweenthem. These six arguments
are developedfromthe two basic diffusionist as-
sumptionsand are elaborated,in turn,intomore
complex and specificpropositions.In some con-
textsof discoursediffusionism describesa simple
two-sectorworld with a boundarybetweenthe
sectors. In othercontextsit depictsa space with
small gradationalchanges, such thatthe six ar-
gumentsdescribesmalland local differences: e.g.,
more innovativeand less innovative,moretradi-
tionaland less traditional.A further
qualification
mustbe made to distinguish thearguments of the
classical and modernformsof diffusionism (about
whichmorewill be said shortly).For brevity,the
discussionwill focuson theworldscale, contrast-
ing a "core" sectorand a "periphery,"and on
theclassical formof thearguments,as follows:
(1) Progressiveculturechange thattakesplace
in thecore sectoris autonomous;thatis, itreflects
inventionsoccurringwithinthecore, and it owes
nothingimportant to theperiphery.
(2) The underlying forceor cause of inventive-
ness in the core sectoris some psychologicalor
spiritualfactorsuch as rationality (Weber 1904-
05), technologicalinventiveness (L. White1962),
imaginativeness(as opposed to imitativeness)
(Tarde 1903), a logicaltheoreticalmind(Sack 1980
fide Levy-Bruhl 1966), or "Western economic
man" (Chisholm 1982).
(3) The peripheryis the traditionalsector or
"traditionalworld," "tradition"herehavingtwo
meanings:low level of civilizationand low rate
of change.Therefore, allowingforexceptions(like
the archaic Asian civilizationsthatrose but then
stagnated),progressiveculturechange in the pe-
ripheryis not autonomousbut is attributable to
diffusionfromthe center.The argumentabout a
"traditionalsector" takes a special formwhen it
is appliedto settlement of theperiphery by people
fromthecore. Whatis invokedherecan be called
the "mythof emptiness."The idea of tradition as
used in diffusionism is basically an idea of ab-
sence-of-qualities.Usually the missingqualities
are psychological(e.g., "rationality")or institu- Embeddedin theforegoingare a numberof im-
tional(e.g., "privateproperty,""the state"). The portantcontraststhat distinguishcore frompe-
mythof emptinessalso assertsan actualemptiness
ofthelandscape:therewereno indigenouspeople,
or theirpopulationwas negligibly small(and sparse
enoughto allow unimpededsettlement byforeign-
ers), or theywere "nomads" and thushad no real
claim to land, resources,and territorialsover-
eignty.
(4) The predominantformof interactionbe-
tweencore and periphery is theoutwarddiffusion
of progressiveideas, intangibleintellectualand
moralproductsreflecting thecore culture'sration-
alityand inventiveness.In classical diffusionism
this is seen as the spread of "civilization" and
todayas thespreadof "modernization."This cen-
trifugaldiffusionis not reallyexplained;it is as-
sumed, rather,to reflectthe automaticworkings
of whatcan be called (witha nod to Malinowski)
theprincipleof ideologicalcontagion:certainideas
diffuseforno reasonotherthantheirinnateinfec-
tiousnessand the inherentsusceptibility-inthis
case, the imitativeness-ofthe recipients.Again
thereis a variantforsettlercolonies: theprogres-
sive ideas are distributed by theirbearers.Clas-
sical and modern diffusionism(see the brief
historicaldiscussionbelow) differin the formu-
lation of this argument.The classical argument
tendedto emphasizemass migrations (Adams,Van
Gerven,and Levy 1978) and the transfer of cul-
turesand culturecomplexes.Moderndiffusionism
tendsto assertthatdiffusionproceeds"fromper-
son to person, ratherthan fromcommunityto
communityor fromcultureto culture" (Rouse
1961, 96, commentingon Edmonson 1961), re-
ducingculturalprocessto thelevel of individuals,
who are thoughtto be adoptingnew ideas freely
(the mythof "voluntarism")and as a reflection
mainlyof cognitiveprocesses and interpersonal
communication (Blaut 1977).
(5) Thereis a counterdiffusionof materialthings
fromperiphery to core, thingslike raw materials,
plantationproducts, art objects, and workers.
Classical diffusionism saw this as one side of a
grandtransactionembodied in colonialism: ma-
terialwealthin partialrepayment-itcould never
be fullrepayment-forcivilization.
(6) There is a second kindof counterdiffusion
fromperiphery to core, consistingof preciselythe
oppositeof civilization.Because the peripheryis
by definitionarchaic, it is the locus of atavistic
traitsthatseep back intothecore accordingto the
principleof ideologicalcontagion.
 Diffusionism 33

ripheryin classical diffusionistethnoscience: concernto Cold War strategists, who sought(not

inventiveness/imitativeness, rationality/irrational-always successfully)to keep these states from
ity, intellect/emotion (or intellect/instinct),ab- turningto socialism. Both interestsrequiredthe
stract thought/concretethought, theoretical creationand scientific validationof a modernform
reasoning/empirical (practical) reasoning,mind/ of thediffusionist model,a bodyof ideas thathad
body, discipline/spontaneity, adult/child, sane/in- to persuadethenow-sovereign ThirdWorldstates
sane, and science/sorcery. thateconomic and social advancementconsisted
in acquiringso-calledmodernizing traitsfromthe
developed capitalistcountries- traitsincluding
Functionsand Historyof Diffusionism penetrationby multinational corporations,spread
of commodityproductionand consumption,ac-
The diffusionist world model became explicit, ceptanceof and relianceon externalcapital, mil-
powerful,and importantas the scientificunder- itary equipment, and personnel, and so on.
pinningof colonialism.Its classical formemerged Advancementalso required the suppressionof
soon afterthe Napoleonic period and flourished forces that would inhibitdiffusionby, for in-
untilaboutthetimeof WorldWar 1.1 Colonialism stance, buildingself-relianteconomies, encour-
itselfwas of course a diffusionprocess among aginglabororganization, andinvestingsocialcapital
otherthings,butclassical diffusionism imposeda in researchinstitutions ratherthan in diffusion
theoreticalmodel over thereal processto exhibit agencies engaged in propellingforeigntraitsinto
colonialismand thephenomenarelatedto it (such thecountryside (see Blaikie1978;Blaut1973, 1977;
as theinternalcharacteristics of thecolonized so- Browett1980; Chilcote 1984; Frank 1969; Yapa
cieties)in waysthatwouldconformto theinterests 1977, 1980; Yapa and Mayfield1978).
of thecolonizingsocietiesand of theelite groups As with classical diffusionism, moderndiffu-
withinthemthatbenefiteddirectlyfromcoloni- sionism as a world model needs to be distin-
alism. Diffusionismdemonstrated, as it were sci- guished from actual diffusion processes and
entifically,that colonialism is normal, natural, agencies. Modern diffusionismis a theoretical
inevitable,and moral(thatis, a bestowalof civi- model in which diffusionfromdeveloped coun-
lization). triesto ThirdWorldcountries(along withthephe-
Classical diffusionismwas appropriateto the nomena related to it such as the internal
epoch in whichcapitalismwas expandingmainly characteristics of the Third World societies) are
by means of colonialism and relatedprocesses. depictedin such a way as to demonstrate, scien-
This epoch ended afterWorld War I, to be fol- tifically,thatdiffusion is theonlypossibleroad to
lowed by a period characterizedby a search for development,to "modernization"(theModewort
stability,normalcy,and peace, henceequilibrium, of moderndiffusionism). Diffusion,therefore, is
and characterizedin social thoughtby models of still normal,natural,inevitable,and moral. And
equilibrium,not of expansive diffusion:Keyne- this is demonstrated withargumentsgroundedin
sian models in economics, regionalismin geog- thetwo diffusionist assumptionsand six basic dif-
raphy, functionalism and relativism in fusionistpropositions.Moderndiffusionism is, if
anthropology, and the like. Diffusionismwas in anything,more importantin our own time than
eclipse duringthis period, althoughsome diffu- classicaldiffusionism was in thelastcentury.This
sionist schools (e.g., the Kulturkreislehreof is so because persuasionhas now replacednaked
Graebnerand Schmidtand the migrationism of force - though not everywhere- and the evident
Huntington and Taylor)remainedactiveand naive failureof the diffusionprocess to produce real
diffusionism still prevailedin children'sschool- developmentthusfarmeansthatevergreaterem-
books(see Harris1968;Kroeber1937;Lowie 1937; phasis mustbe placed on theoriesthatprovecon-
Voget 1975). clusivelythatdiffusionmustlead to development
A new and modernformof diffusionism gained sooneror later.
prominenceafterWorld War II, in the periodof The foregoingdiscussionof thestructure of dif-
collapsingcolonialempiresandan emerging "Third fusionismand its historyand changingfunctions
World" of underdevelopedbut sovereigncoun- is of course schematicand incomplete.What is
tries.These countrieswereof greateconomicim- perhapsmostobviouslymissingis an explanation
portance to capitalism in its new era of of the fact thatmost social scientistswho today
expansionismand were of equally greatpolitical putforwarddiffusionist ideas - all mustdo so to
34 Blaut

one extentor another- are unawareof the dif- sionismbecause it seems to carrywithit the as-
fusionismin their(our) thinking.I have addressed sumptionthatpeople in generalare imitative,not
thisproblemelsewhere(Blaut 1979, 2-6). inventive,and thatordinary people are stupid.But
in fact,as I outlinebelow, it is not necessaryto
give an important roleto independent inventionin
A TheoreticalAlternative order to build a nondiffusionist, uniformitarian
schema fordiffusiontheory.The critiqueof dif-
Let us returnnow to an abstractlandscapeand fusionismdoes not have to draw us intothe tra-
beginto constructa theoreticalalternativeto dif- ditionaland oftenfutiledebateslabeled "diffusion
fusionism.In factthereare at least two alterna- vs. independentinvention."Let us firstassume
tives, both of which eliminatethe diffusionist thatindependent invention is indeedimportant and
assumptionthatone place has moreinventiveness see wherethis.takesus.
thanall otherplaces. Instead we assume unifor- In thelimitingcase, an inventionoccurssimul-
mitarianism - thatall communitieshave equal taneouslyin all communitiesthroughout a land-
potentialforinventionand innovation,regardless scape. If these communitieswere, say, villages
of whetherforthelandscapeas a wholetheoverall not very distantfromone another,it would be
propensity to inventis low or high. The original extremely unlikelythatall communities would ac-
doctrine called "uniformitarianism" was the quire a traitsimultaneously throughindependent
methodologicalprincipleused by nineteenth-cen-invention.(I assume thatthe traitis in some de-
turyscience to counterthe claims of theologians finablesenseusefulforthepopulationas a whole.)
and othersthatphysicallysimilarformsacrossthe But if the communitieswere major culturere-
earth'ssurfaceare to be explainedas unique in- gions,thenthescenerioof simultaneousindepen-
terventions of God or theDevil (see Harris1968; dentinvention is notnecessarily unrealistic.
(Think,
Voget 1975). Uniformitarianism asserted,in es- forinstance,of parallel responsesto widespread
sence,thata commonsetof physicallaws operates drought,epidemic,or invasion.) At a given time
everywhere,and whereverwe findsimilarphysi- all places would lack the trait;at the end of a
cal factswe shouldlook forsimilarphysicalcauses definedintervalall places would possess thetrait.
and vice versa. A logicallyrelateddoctrine,called The landscapewould thusgo througha sequence
the principleof the "psychic unityof mankind" of stages,each representing theacquisitionof one
("psychic" heremeaning"psychological"), was novel trait,and at each stagethelandscapewould
used some decades laterto oppose thediffusionist be a uniformregion.
argument thatindependent inventioncannotbe in- It would obviouslybe morerealisticto assume
voked to explain traitadoption by most of the thatdiffusionoccurs along withindependentin-
world's peoples because mostpeoples are not in- vention.(Nobody has ever questionedthe signif-
ventive.Underlying theprincipleof psychicunity icanceof diffusion, merelyitsclaimto hegemony.)
was the simplepropositionthatall humanbeings In thiscase, the firstnovel traitwould appear in
sharethe same basic psychologicalattributes and a numberof communitiesrandomlydistributed
capabilities(Harris 1968; Koepping 1983; Lowie across the landscape, and the traitwould spread
1937). We can take thispartof the doctrine,call to the communitiessurrounding them.The sub-
it "psychological uniformitarianism" or simply sequent diffusionprocess would not necessarily
"uniformitarianism," and defineit for our pur- lead to spatial differentiation, and, aftera given
pose as follows: in all human communitieswe numberof definedintervals, theregionwouldagain
shouldexpectto findthe same capacityforcrea- be uniform,havingchanged statefromtraitab-
tionand invention; henceinvention and innovation sence to traitpresence. We can complicatethe
should have an equal probabilityof occurringin processby assumingthatnew innovationsare ap-
all places. Note thatwhat we are assuminghere pearingwhile thepriorinnovationsare diffusing.
is notuniformity butequality,and recallthatdif- The overall picturewould remainone in which
fusionismassumes inequality. diffusionplaysa role, yetno partof thelandscape
A uniformitarian landscapecan changein either acquirescharacteristics thatare not also acquired
of two ways, dependingon whetherwe choose to by all otherparts.
retainor discardthe diffusionist assumptionthat Next assume a situationin which independent
diffusionis more important thanindependentin- inventionplaysonlya minorrole,a case thatmay
ventionbecause inventionis rare.This assumption have been overlookedin the classical arguments
has tendedto be rejectedby opponentsof diffu- againstdiffusionism.Here a traitis inventedin
 Diffusionism 35

one community and subsequently diffusesto other landscape. If thereis environmental variationin
communities.At thispointwe maypause to con- thelandscape,thentraitmodifications wouldmost
sider the propertiesof what I have been calling likelyoccurin thoseenvironmental contextswhere
"traits." One problemin studiesofculturechange theoriginaltraitprovesleastuseful.Hence itmight
by anthropologists and culturalgeographershas be thatthe farther one goes fromthe originating
been the difficultyof isolatinga singleempirical community, thegreateris theprobabilitythatthe
event of the sortcalled a "culturetrait." Every traitwill be modified.Nonetheless,we are safe if
traitis in principlemade up of componenttraits. we merelyassume randomnessin the process of
Sometimeswe do reach a definitelimitingpoint modification. This scenarioagain producesa uni-
below which everything seems to be a partof a formregion.2
trait,particularlywhenwe are dealingwithfunc- This is the base case foruniformitarianism. It
tionalitemsof materialculturelike bows, houses, deniesthatsome places or people are moreinven-
and so on. But, in general,the effortsto reduce tive thanothers,and it denies thatinnovationis
culturesto "trait lists" provedunworkable,and rare. It assumes only the level of inventiveness
the concept of "trait" remainedimprecise(see neededto producemodestmodifications of exist-
Harris1968, 376-77; Leaf 1979, 167; Voget 1975, ingtraits.It gives to diffusion, notto independent
372-82). Modern diffusionresearchtendsto ig- invention,themaincausal role in culturechange.
nore thisissue and to employwhatcan be called But this kind of diffusionis verydifferent from
the "patentoffice" notion(or the "commodity" thediffusion of diffusionism. It producesspatially
notion) of what constitutesa diffusingtrait,the uniformor randomlyvarying.changes,not the
notionthatit is in some ontologicalsense whole buildingup ofcentersofinvention and innovation.
and different fromanyexistingtrait.In thepresent It thusdrawsourattention away fromtheevolving
discussiona traitrefersto any distinguishable bit patternof a spreadingdiffusion,what I have de-
or qualityof culture,whetheror not it is ontolog- scribedelsewhereas the transitionalphase in a
ically object-like,holistic,of systemic.It must, diffusion process(Blaut 1977), and towarddiffer-
however,be invented,putto use as an innovation, entkindsof problems.
and thendiffusedto othercommunities.Defining
traitin thisway has some interestingimplications.
The inventionand diffusionof definite,whole, DiffusionProcesses
recognizablethingsis muchless significant in the
real world than is the additionby inventionor We can now identify seven diffusionprocesses
diffusionof improvements, modifications,or ad- thatbecome salientin a uniformitarian approach
aptationsmade to alreadyexistingpieces of cul- to diffusiontheory.
ture. Though well known, this has surprising 1. Cellular diffusion.In a theoreticallandscape
implications.Consideragain the traitinventedin intowhichwe have not introducedany empirical
one communityand thendiffusedto others.Let basis for spatial differentiation (such as hill-val-
us assume thatsome othercommunity,afterac- ley, town-country, sovereignstate-colony,core-
quiringthe trait,modifiesit. Generically,this is periphery)or in which it cannot be assumed a
independentinvention,thoughmodestmodifica- priorithatsuchempiricaldifferences will produce
tions mightnot be called inventions.The now- spatial variationsin the inventionand diffusion
modifiedtraitappearsin thelandscapeand begins patterns,the effectsof bothinventionand diffu-
to diffusein its own right.Later a new modifi- sionwill lead to a uniform region.This is because,
cation is made by one of the communities,and as we have seen, inventionswill occur in ran-
thenow twice-modified traitbeginsto diffuse.As- domlydistributed communitiesand diffusionwill
sume that a sizable proportionof the diffusion have no greatertendencyto move in one direction
eventsin thelandscapeconsistof theemissionof than another.Thus in the real world we would
traitsin a modifiedform,as comparedto theform have a uniform regionchangingfromtheone state
in whichtheywereoriginally receivedand adopted. to anotheras a whole. At higherlevels of aggre-
All of thisis going on simultaneously throughout gationwe wouldhave a pattern ofcellularregions,
the landscape, in a processthatcan be called each uniformand separatedfromall othersby a
I will define the term more preciselylater boundarydefinedbythefactthatdiffusions do not
"crisscrossdiffusion."We continueto assumethat cross it withina definedepoch. In this situation
the communitiesthatinitiateeach inventionand theproblemof majorinterest would no longerin-
modificationare randomlydistributed across the volve the spatial transitionfromtraitabsence to
36 Blaut

traitpresencebut would relate to why the trait ificationswill be generated,transmitted, and re-
eitherdoes or does not diffusein the region ceived frequently and will diffusequickly.At all
problemsthusof entryconditionsand boundary timesnovel traitswill be crisscrossingthe land-
breachingbetweenregions(Blaut 1977, 349). All scape. For large culturaltransformations like the
of thismay be called "cellular diffusion." NeolithicRevolutionand the transition fromfeu-
2. Ultra-rapiddiffusion.Considerthreecases: dalism to capitalism,the effectof crisscrossdif-
(1) a traitdiffusesthrougha region with great fusionwould be simultaneouschangesthroughout
rapidity- almostinstantly; (2) a traitdiffusesat a landscape as a whole. Consider a landscape
some moderate,measurablerate; (3) a traitdoes composedofjust twocommunities,1 and 2. Com-
notdiffusein the regionat all. Cases (1) and (3) munity1 inventsa traitor modifiesan existing
have receivedlittleattention in ThirdWorldrural trait.The inventionreachescommunity 2 by dif-
contexts(but see Blaut 1977, 345-47; Yapa and fusion.Community2 adds a modificationof its
Mayfield1978). 1 thinkthe neglectof bothcases own, whichthendiffusesto community1, which
reflects,in part,an unperceivedinfluenceof dif- mayat thesame timebe transmitting anothermod-
fusionism,specificallyits assumptionthatpeople ificationto 2. Both communitiesare simulta-
are not veryinnovative(Bowen-Jones1981, 79- neouslyinventing, transmitting,andreceivingnovel
82; Chisholm 1982, 155-63) and thatchangere- traits,whichthusare crisscrossingthe space be-
flectsthearrivalof traitsdiffusedfromelsewhere tween them, and both communitiesare going
(Lentnek1969; 1971, 163; Hoyle 1974,5). A large throughan orderedsequence of changessimulta-
diffusionist mythologyhas been builtup on the neously. If the bundleof noveltiesadds up to a
basis of "extensionism"in ruralsociology(Rog- majorculturaltransformation, a "revolution,"we
ers 1962) and "modernization"theoryelsewhere cannotsay thattherevolutionstartedin one com-
(McClelland 1961; Foster 1962; Hagen 1962) to munityand diffusedto the other:it occurredin
supportthe idea thatThirdWorldpeople can be bothsumultaneously. For the same scenarioin a
made on empiricalevidence thatdiffusiontends landscapewithmanycommunities, we would not
to proceedeitherremarkably rapidlyor notat all. be able to pointto one place as thesourceor hearth
If a traitis information-dependent, ifit is patently of the revolutionand describeotherplaces as re-
useful, and if resourcesto adopt it are present, cipients-by-diffusion. If we were studyingsuch a
thenit will diffusenearlyat the rate information transformation empirically,we would assumethat
spreads. This is almost instantaneously in most the entirelandscape participatedin the transfor-
social systems,unlessinformation is a commodity mationby crisscrossdiffusionunless.we were to
or is held oligopolisticallyby power groupsand uncoverempiricalevidenceto thecontrary.
not allowed to diffuse(see Blaikie 1978; Blaut 4-6. Dependent,disguised, and phantomdif-
1977). If humanbeings are highlyinventiveand fusion. Diffusionism, as notedpreviously,asserts
proneto receiveand transmit innovationsrapidly, thatprogressiveideas and theirconsequences-
traitdiffusionifnotinhibitedbyextraneousforces civilization,modernization, development- flow
(e.g., economicor political)shouldproceedat rates fromthedevelopedcapitalist"core" to the more
so rapid perhapsthatmodelingthe transitionis backwardand slowly progressing"periphery."
eitherimpossibleor uninteresting. By the same Modern diffusionism, for reasons discussed al-
token, however, inhibitingforces will often ready,strivesto show thatit is just thisspreading
and in mostThirdWorld areas typically- pre- of modernknowledgeand ways thatcharacterizes
ventthe diffusionof useful,development-induc- thepresent-day relationship betweencapitalistme-
ing innovationsfromtakingplace at all. As to the tropolisand ThirdWorldand strivesto arguecon-
intermediate case, of moderate,measurable,mod- vincinglythatreceptivity to flowsof all sortsfrom
elable diffusion,I will argue below that,at least the metropolisis the only way forperipheralso-
in the ThirdWorld,cases of thissortusuallyre- cietiesto achievedevelopmentand "modernity."
flectprocesses otherthanthe autonomousdiffu- Emergingfromthisis a concretemodelin which
sion of innovations.Note that this stop-or-go thereis assertedto be a steadyflow of informa-
diffusionpattern- ultra-rapid diffusionor none tion, "modern" social attitudes,and wealth-gen-
at all - is consistentwiththecellularmodeldis- eratingmaterialthingslikeproductivefarminputs
cussed previously. glissadingdownfrommetropolis to periphery.This
3. Crisscross diffusion.In a uniformitarianmodel has been deployedin one formor another
landscape, diffusionwill proceed rapidlyin the in a numberof studies,empiricaland theoretical,
absence of inhibiting factors.Traitsor traitmod- and claims are made thatit has been empirically
 Diffusionism
validated(see e.g., Gould 1969; Rogersand Shoe-
maker1971; Pedersen1970; L. Brown 1981). in
fact, it is merelyself-validating, because it fails
to distinguishtraitsgeneratingdevelopmentfrom
traitsdoingquitedifferent things,suchas increas-
ing povertyand landlessness;in effectthe model
treatsall diffusingtraitsas "modernizinginno-
vations."
The foregoing critiqueleads us to recognizethree
specificerroneousargumentstructures thatI will
referto respectivelyas (4) dependentdiffusion,
(5) disguised diffusion,and (6) phantomdiffu-
sion. In dependentdiffusion, assumethediffusion
in the same space-timeof two traits,x and y; y is
dependenton x if the diffusionof x is an auton-
omous process,explainablein termsof a definite
causal model, and if the diffusionof y is wholly
explainedby thefactthatwhereverwe findx we
tendto findy (forwhateverreason). Traity may
covary spatiallywithx, or it may simplybe an
adventitiousattachmentto x. In such cases we
would be in errorif we explainedthediffusionof
X witha model postulatingan autonomouscause
of thediffusion.As an example,considerthecase
of a regionin whichthereis a progressiveerosion
of farmtenure,withfarmstendingto slide down
what is oftencalled the "tenure ladder," from
farmownershipto tenancyto sharecroppingto
landlessnessand sale of labor. As tenureerodes,
theremay well be a change in crops, productive
inputs,and equipment.A novel crop may spread
because itprovidesthesame foodvalue on smaller
acreage. Anothermay spread because it can be
sold as a commodity to pay rentdemandedin cash.
Anothercrop,oftena "modern" exportcrop,may
spreadbecause landlordsforceitsgrowthon share
tenantsand may spread even more dramatically
when farmershave been evicted and the land is
cultivatedin largeplantations.In thesetwo cases
(increasedsharecropping and conversionto plan-
tationor "kulak" agriculture)we oftenfind an
impressivediffusionintothe countryside of agri-
culturalmachineryand expensive inputs. If we
were to claim here thatthereis an autonomous
diffusionof "modernizing" traits- innovative
crops,tractors,and thelike - we would be mis-
taken:these are the y's, traitswhose diffusionis
dependenton thediffusionofx, in thiscase land-
lordism.Yet diffusionresearchers oftenmakethis
mistakein theirstudiesof ThirdWorldruralland-
scapes, falselycharacterizing the diffusingy's as
innovationsthatare partof "modernization"and
development(e.g., Lentnek1969; Riddell 1970).
In thiscase thereis a misreadingof causality:
37
an explanatory schemais invokedforthediffusion
of a traity whereasthe appropriateexplanation
would have to account for the diffusionof the
independenttraitx, withy thenbeing seen as a
traitthat,so to speak, rides piggybackon x. In
the case of disguiseddiffusion,the independent
traitx is simplynot observed.This occurs most
frequently whentheobservedtrait,y, seemsto be
an expressionof "the diffusionof modernizing
innovations,"while the x is some economically
or sociallycorrosiveprocess. One further typeof
disguised(and dependent)diffusiondeservesno-
tice. This is the case wherethe trulysignificant
spatial flow is outwardfroma region(as in the
marketing of farmcommoditiesor thedrainingof
wealthfromperiphery to core) whereasthespatial
flowsintotheregion(thediffusion processesnor-
mallystudied)are nothingmorethana preparation
of infrastructure: capital investment, road build-
ing, and thelike. (On thehistoricalimportance of
diffusionfromperipheryto core see Lattimore
1980.) Most colonial diffusionsconsistedof in-
frastructure of this sort,designed for profitnot
development,and leadingoftento theoppositeof
development.Yet a numberof geographers,e.g.,
Riddellin his studyof SierraLeone (Riddell 1970,
3-7, 13-14, 40-65, 70-72, 86-93, 95-101, 129-
31), treatall such colonial infrastructural diffu-
sions as thoughtheywere truly"modernizing,"
therebysuggestingthatcolonialismwas itselfa
modernizingprocess, ratherthan, as in Sierra
Leone, a process of destroyingthe pre-existing
social-political,economic,and spatialstructure of
precolonialdevelopment, includingroads,schools,
and medical institutions.3
It can also happenthata diffusionis inferred to
have takenplace whennone in factdid, a case of
whatcan be called phantomdiffusion.This error
is easier to make thanmay seem apparentand is
most easily made if the traitis ephemeral(like
information) or abstract(like modernizationit-
self); but it happensalso withconcretematerial
traitswhose actualdiffusionwas notobserved.A
classic case is themythicspreadof modem med-
icine in colonial India.4 Equally classic is the ar-
gumentthatearly Americansdid not inventthe
innovativetraitsof civilizationbutreceivedthem
fromsomeoriginalhearthin theOld World(Carter
1968, 538-63) and therelatedattempt by Edmon-
son (1961) to tracethediffusionof potteryto the
New World usinga formof theprincipleof ide-
ological contagionand neglectingmaterialevi-
dence.
An important case of phantomdiffusionis the
38 Blaut

inference-basedon evidenceof knowndiffusion administration and control,as a typicalcase of

of certain materialtraits-that development-in- voluntarydiffusionof innovations,with "dem-
ducing information has spreadthrougha region. onstrationeffects," "information,"a patternof
The spreadof such traitsin theruralThirdWorld "'acceptance" nicelysuitedto trend-surface map-
oftenreflectsprocesses in which information (as ping and the like (see Riddell 1970, 48-55, and
thattermis used in diffusionresearch)was either supporting commentsin Gould 1969, 66 and in L.
itrelevantor absent:therewas no voluntary"de- Brown 1981, 267-69; compareKup 1975, Ch. 6
cision to adopt" made afterthe receiptof infor- and Fyle 1981, 116-17).
mation;rather,thedecisionwas forcedon farmers A moreconcreteand interesting case comesfrom
(e.g., by landlordsor creditors)or ittookplace in Gould (1969, 1970) and some others(including
a different economic space, such as thatof plan- Riddell) who make the followingargument:The
tations,"kulaks," or merchants (Blaut 1977, 346- colonial powersbuiltroads; roads implyaccessi-
47). Thus, inferringthatthediffusion of traitslike bility;and accessibilityis an adequate surrogate
new crops or machinerywas based upon thedif- fordevelopmentor modernization. This argument
fusionof information is oftenunwarranted. This is invalidatedon threecounts.First,accessibility
is a crucialpointfortheoryand policy because it existedinprecolonialroutesofmovement andtrade,
cutsthechainof reasoningby whichthediffusion usuallyelaborateand oftenas modernas one can
of new ideas is judged to be thecrucialcomponent expectforthepre-automobile era. Riddell (1970,
of development-thatit has some role to play is 3) assertsthatprecolonialSierraLeone had only
not at issue-and by which technicalassistance "bush pathsand riverineroutes," whereasit had
and theencouragement of externaldependenceand twointerdigitating transport networks, one leading
controlliterallytakestheplace of landreformand to theSudaniceconomichearth,theother(Creole)
genuinesocial change.In thisconnectionwe might one to Freetown(Riddell 1970, 3, 20; compare
note thatthe classic instanceof information dif- Hopkins1973; Howard 1975, 263-64; Kup 1975,
fusionin a processof agricultural modernization, 72; Newbury1969, 69; Fyle 1981, Ch. 15). In
thecase of extensionservicesto UnitedStatesag- the case of Ghana, Gould writesof "total inac-
riculturefromthe 1930s to the 1950s, calls for cessibility"priorto Britishroad buildingforan
some reinterpretation. Farmers,actingthrough the area whichalso had a complicatednetworkof pre-
politicalprocess (particularly the "farmbloc" in colonial (premotor)roads, in fact a well-devel-
Congress),demandedthattheybe providedwith oped hierarchy of centralplaces (Gould 1969, 64;
suchservicesin an environment in whichthefam- compareKea 1982 on road networksand central
ily farmwas gravelythreatened by the growthof place systemsof precolonialGhana). Second, co-
giant marketingand supplycorporations.Hence lonialroadnetworks are orientedto Europeaneco-
thecriticalinformation diffusedfrom the farmers nomic concerns,mainlyof export,and theyare
to the government, and the replycame back via notalwaysof muchuse in transportation planning
experiment stations,countyextensionagents,and today; indeed, they reinforce(as they were in-
therest. tendedto do) the externaleconomic dependency
Anotherformof phantomdiffusion is wherethe forwhichthe countrymay wish to substituteau-
abstractsubstance,development, is inferredto have tonomy.Third, road systemsdo not necessarily
diffusedintoa ThirdWorldregionwhenithas not provide development.In many colonies and in
done so. Oftenthisinvolvesa fusingof classical semicolonies(like China), complexroad and rail-
and moderndiffusionism in theargument thatEu- roadsystemsweredevelopedbuttheydid notbring
ropeancolonialismwas innatelya processof de- development.Today, developmentdoes not au-
velopmentand modernization and thatthisprocess tomaticallyflowdown thesenetworksbecause of
is theonlyrouteto developmenttoday.Giventhis accessibility(Stevens and Lee 1979; Wilbanks
model, manycolonial traitscan be seen as con- 1972). Undercertainsociopoliticalconditions,they
creteindicatorsof "modernization."Thus, forin- provideaccessibilityforflowswhichare antidev-
stance,Riddelldescribesa relativelyunimportant elopment.
changein local administration thattheBritishim- 7. Mostdiffusions are also displacements in that
posed essentiallyby forceon SierraLeone in the one traitdisplaces anotheror one populationdis-
1930s as a voluntarilyadopted, "modernizing" places another.The distinction betweendisplacing
change. He depicts the change, which was im- and nondisplacingdiffusionsis not oftenmade,
posed mainlyovera six-yearperiodby theBritish and thisleads to theoreticaland empiricalerrors.
in a spatialprocessaccordantwiththeirpatternof One sourceof thisproblemis thediffusionist ar-
 Diffusionism 39

gumentthatI have called the mythof emptiness. agricultural developmentinthepresent-day world.

Classical colonialismarguedthatthespreadof Eu- In each case I put forwarda generalizationand
ropean populations,culturalfacts, and political just enoughsupporting evidenceto renderit plau-
controlwas scientifically naturaland morallyjus- sible.5
tifiablebecause (among otherthings)the land-
scapes intowhichthesethingswereinsertedwere Hypothesis1. The Old Worldagricultural rev-
in one sense or anotherempty.Aboriginalpopu- olutionmay have happenedeverywhereat once.
lationswere sparse or virtuallynonexistent.The More precisely,we shouldnotlook forone or two
people werenomads.They had no state,no prop- originaland autonomouscentersbutshouldexpect
erty,no commerce.At mosttheyhad "traditional to find thatlarge portionsof Asia, Africa,and
society"intowhicheverything modernwouldflow Europe were participating simultaneouslyin the
as if intoa vacuum. Moderndiffusionism reduces process,howeverlengthyit may have been. The
its focus mainlyto the case of "traditionalsoci- process may have workedin the followingway.
eties" and the flow into themof "modernizing First,we make the familiar,thoughnot univer-
innovations. " sally accepted, assumptionthata transformation
It would take us farafieldto discuss the many froma preagricultural to an agricultural economy
ways in whichthe mythof emptinessstillaffects was advantageousforpeople over most (not all)
geographyand social thought,but I shall offera of the reasonablywarm and nonaridportionsof
few examples of this typeof thinking.Nostrand the Old World.6Second, we assume thathuman
underestimates earlierHispanic populationin the settlement was essentiallycontinuousover most
Southwest(Nostrand1975; criticizedin Blaut and of thisarea, withdiscontinuities spannedby land
Rios-Bustamante1984). McEvedy has depicted and waterroutesof movement.Third,we intro-
southernAfricaas largelyemptyof Africansother duce the uniformitarian assumptionsthatall set-
than Bushmenand Hottentotspriorto European tlements and cultures were simultaneously
settlement (McEvedy 1980, 20-112; in a similar inventing,sending,and receivingagricultural in-
vein, see Guelke 1976). Reichmanand Hasson novations.Fourth,theeffectsoftheforegoing were
(1984, 62) map the PalestinianWest Bank circa transmitted by crisscrossdiffusionthroughout the
1910 as an area of "nomad population." (For an entireregionat a rapidrate,rapidenoughto per-
extremeview see Rowley 1983, 188). Various mitinnovationsto pass back and forththroughout
theoreticalstudiesemploymodelsthatimproperly theregion(whichstretched at leastfromWest Af-
defineprediffusion spaces as empty,the mostin- ricaandCentralEuropeto Chinaand New Guinea),
fluentialexample being the depictionby Taaffe, and thusgraduallyto buildup an agricultural land-
Morrill,and Gould (1963) of transportation de- scape.
velopmentin a hypothetical underdeveloped coun- We shouldtakenoteof recentevidencepointing
try(see commentary in L. Brown 1981, 267-69). towarda convergenceof dates for earliestagri-
Such models diffuseinto pedagogy, where they culturein theneighborhood of 9,000-11,000 B.P.
supplyrealistic-seeming models, images, games, forregionsdistantfromone anotherand verydis-
and "simulations"of empty-seeming ThirdWorld similarin environment: northern Nigeriaand var-
spaces (e.g., Frenchand Stanley 1974; Haggett ious Saharan sites (c. 9,000 B.P.: Wendorfand
1983, 515-21; Haggettand Chorley 1969, 296- Schild 1980), southeastern Europe (c. 8,000 B.P.:
298). In the case of diffusionsthatdisplace, it Kabaker 1977), SouthwestAsia (c. 10,000 B.P.:
seems unlikelythattheoreticalmodels(or games) Kabaker 1977), northeastern India (c. 7,000 B.P.:
can be of muchhelp unless theytake accountof Vishnu-Mittre 1978), Thailand(9,000 B.P. or ear-
conflict,coercion,and politicalpower. lier:Gorman1977),highlandNew Guinea(c. 9,000
B.P.: Golson 1977), and China (c. 7,000 B.P.: Ho
1977). Furtherresearchmayshiftthespecificspace-
Hypotheses timepattern,butno longerwill single-center the-
ories be able to assertthe hegemonyof Middle
Diffusionism has so pervadedsocial thought that East antiquity.Various theoriesof agricultural
it seems reasonable to suppose thata nondiffu- origins(e.g., Cohen 1977; Rindos 1984) are con-
sionistperspectivewill lead us to rethinksome of sistentwiththehypothesis of a nearlycontinental-
our largerhypotheses.By way of concludingthis scale agricultural revolution.Some of these the-
paper, I shall discuss five such hypotheses.Four ories posit a numberof sites thateithershareda
have to do withculturehistoryand thefifthwith commonenvironmental character(e.g., maximal
40 Blaut

biomass-production potential)or were environ- autonomous.Innovationsin materialcultureand

mentallydiverse(e.g., Vavilov's (1951) long list social organizationof production diffusedbothinto
of domesticationhearths),but such sites can be and out of Europe. An agricultural revolutionof
viewed as nodes in a networkand thesetheories sortswas indeedtakingplace buton a hemispheric
are not inconsistent
withour hypothesis. scale (Blaut 1976), andthechangesthattookplace
withinEurope cannot be woven into a separate
Hypothesis 2. A numberof importanttheses causal theoryof progress.
about agriculturalevolutionare influencedby as-
sumptionsabout selective ignorance,noninven- Hypothesis3. The rise of capitalismoccurred
tiveness, and a primordial directionality of in manypartsof Asia, Africa,and Europe at the
diffusion-assumptions thatare sometimesdiffu- same time. This hypothesisis a simpledenial of
sionistand sometimesgiven momentumbecause the thesisthatcapitalismarose autonomouslyin
theyare conformalto diffusionism. Withdrawing Europe and nowhereelse and arose because of
these assumptionsshould change our thinkingin attributes (e.g., progressiveness, rationality,
mod-
significantways. I shall suggest two. (1) Why ernity)uniqueto Europeans.I defendthishypoth-
shouldwe believethatirrigation is an evolutionary esis elsewhere(Blaut 1976, in press) but briefly
advance over drained-and dry-field farmingsys- the argumentis as follows: First,everyattribute
temsor thatsedentary systemsare an advanceover of medieval Europe thatplayed a causal role in
shiftingsystems?When we deal with situations thesubsequentrise of capitalismwas also present
thatare notcomplicatedby class pressuresforsur- in a numberof othercommunitiesacross the Old
plus delivery,all of these different farmingsys- World at the same time, and these communities
temsshouldbe capableof providing aboutthesame were notless progressive,morerigid,more"tra-
returns to laborovermanydifferent environmental ditional," nor were Europeansuniquely"inven-
situations.There is nothingabout small-scaleir- tive" (Weber 1904-05, 1916; L. White 1962,
rigationthatis moreesotericthantheway farmers 1968). Second, emergingproto-capitalismwas
manage moisturesupplyin drained-field and dry- seated mainlyin mercantile-maritime urbancen-
fieldfarmingsystems.And we are supposingnow ters(withsmallhinterlands), stretchingfromwest-
that inventivenessand rapid crisscrossdiffusion ernEuropeto easternAsia and southernAfrica(to
are the normalstate of affairs.It seems reason- Sofalaandperhapssouthward). Thesecenterswere,
able, therefore,to suggestthatdrained-field ag- on the one hand, peripheralto and partiallyin-
ricultureand shiftingagriculture are neithermore dependentof thesurrounding feudalstatesand, on
nor less ancientthanirrigatedagriculture and that theother,were themselvesinterlockedin a hem-
the systemsvaryforreasonsthathave nothingto isphere-widenetworkof trade and communica-
do withselectivetechnologicalignoranceor cog- tion, a networkthroughwhichinnovationsof all
nitiveprimitivity.7And it does not seem reason- sortswere transmitted to all partsof the system
able to believe, a priori, that an "irrigation by rapid crisscrossdiffusionwiththe resultthat
revolution"or "hydraulicrevolution"occurred the characterof mercantilecapitalism,of urban
separate fromthe primal agriculturalrevolution production,and of much else besides was basi-
and createdcentersof social evolution.Large-scale cally commonto all nodes in the network.Thus
irrigation systemsmusthave been the effect,not all centerswere participating in a commonevo-
the cause, of class processes and the state; the lutiontowarda fullycapitalistsocietyand polity,
logic of suchsystemsis thattheycan providemore an evolutionthatwas takingplace at a rapid,per-
surplusproductper unitof area and facilitatethe haps ultra-rapid, rateduringthe fifteenth century
divisionof labor. Thus thepopularcausal model in partsof Europe butalso in partsof Africaand
for "hydrauliccivilization" is stood on its head, Asia. Third,it was the conquestand plunderof
and the notionsof "orientaldespotism" and an the New World-carried out by Europeans be-
"Asiatic mode of production"are denied their cause proto-capitalist centersofEuropewerethou-
principalmeansof support.(2) The beliefthatan sands of miles closer to the New World in 1492
autonomous,internally generatedagricultural rev- than were any othermajor proto-capitalist cen-
olutionoccurredin medievalEurope(see, e.g., L. ters-that providedthe resourcesenablingEuro-
White 1962) mustlose credibility whenwe with- pean merchant capitalto risetowardpoliticalpower
draw fromit thediffusionist assumptionthatevo- in Europe and to beginthe processof destroying
lutionarychange withinthe European sector is competing groups elsewhere. Thus capitalism
 Diffusionism 41

ceased to rise in Africa and Asia while it was environment. Typical diffusionrates for exoge-
advancingtowarda bourgeoisand thenindustrial nous agricultural innovationsthatare clearlyben-
revolutionin Europe alone. eficial to farmerstend to be rapid or ultra-rapid
whereinhibiting politicaland class conditionsare
Hypothesis4. Nationalismdid not arise as an absent. This is the case, for instance,where an
innovation in Europeand thenappearin otherparts egalitarianpoliticalenvironment limitsor elimi-
of theworldas a resultof diffusionfromEurope. nates the abilityof nonfamily-farming groupsor
This hypothesis,like the precedingone, I have classes to preventfamilyfarmersfromadopting
defendedelsewhere(Blaut 1980, 1982, in press) innovationsfreely.This is also the case where
so here I will merelysummarizethe arguments familyfarmers,because of farmsize and tenure
and the issues. The body of theoryabout nation- security,have power to make decisions. On the
alism (i.e., nationalconflicts,the "nationalques- otherhand, innovationstendto diffuseslowlyor
tion'') is dominated by two viewpoints, a notat all in politicalenvironments thatfavorpower
mainstream theorythatis diffusionist and a form groups(e.g., landlords,merchants)thatcan pre-
of Marxisttheorythatis onlyslightlyless so. The ventfamilyfarmersfrommakingdecisionsor in
mainstream theoryderivesnationalprocessesfrom politicalenvironments in whichfarmersare pow-
a primordialEuropeanidea, the "idea of nation- erlessbecause of poor tenure,small size of farm,
alism," whichis supposed to have arisenauton- and the like.
omously in northwestern Europe as the idea of, The influenceof social conditionsupon diffu-
and urgeto create,thenation-state. This idea then sion ratesis notoftendisputed.But whatthishy-
diffusedoutwardtowardthe rest of the world, pothesisassertsis thatthese conditionsplay the
eventuallyarrivingin colonies and sparkingna- criticalroleinmatters relatingto agricultural
change
tional liberation movements. The comparable in underdevelopedareas; the factorstraditionally
Marxisttheoryidentifiesthe nation-stateas the emphasizedby diffusiontheorists(in geography
most suitablepoliticalformforyouthfulcapital- andelsewhere)areofsecondaryimportance in some
ism and thusthe goal of politicalstruggleby the situationsand irrelevant in mostothers.If thehy-
bourgeoisiein its rise to power. Capitalismdif- pothesisis valid, thenthe effortto explain, pre-
fused out across the world, and therefore,quite dict, and generate agriculturalchange should
naturally,thereemergedeverywherea local class proceedin a fundamentally differentway. To make
of "risingbourgeoisie" and, in its wake, "bour- thisargumentI will have to say a wordaboutthe
geois nationalism." Neithertheorygives a real evolutionof diffusiontheoryand the way it be-
causal role to conditions of exploitation and came entangledwithdiffusionism.
oppressionin thecoloniesand semicoloniesor ex- Whendiffusion-of-agricultural-innovations the-
plainseitherthekindof nationalismthatstruggles orybegan to crystallize,mainlyin the 1940s and
againstcolonialismin orderto create a socialist 1950s, thecruxof thetheorywas theinformation
stateor thekindthatstrugglesto restorea precap- postulate-the notionthatthe communicationof
italiststate. A nondiffusionist alternativeto both information about innovationsis centralto the
theoriesargues thatnationalstruggleis struggle processof change. Therewas important confirm-
forstatepower,underconditionswherecontrolof ingevidencefromlandscapeswithstrongand sta-
the state is in the hands of foreigngroups and ble peasantries;indeed,agricultural extensionhad
produces suffering(economic, political, or cul- muchto do withthesurvivalof familyfarmingin
tural)forthe inhabitants. This can occur in many NorthAmericaduringand afterthe Depression.
circumstances and manyformsof society.It may The argument thatinformation flowswouldbe im-
reflectcolonial oppression,or powerstrugglesin portantpredictorsof change made good sense in
earlycapitalism,or othercircumstances, some set thatcontext(see Hagerstrand 1967;Tiedemannand
in motionby diffusionprocesses,othersinternal Van Doren 1964). But thecontextdid notextend
to an area, or culture,or state. to politicallydisenfranchised peasantriessuffering
underlandlordismand debtpeonage.
Hypothesis5. In present-day rurallandscapes In the 1950sgeographers, ruralsociologists,ag-
of underdevelopedcountries,the main variables riculturaleconomists,and theircolleagues began
thatdeterminediffusionrates are not spatial or a trulymassiveeffortto apply information-based
psychologicaland are notmattersof distance,ac- diffusiontheoryto this largerand fundamentally
cessibility,or so-calledadopterattributes;themain different context.The motorforce,as discussed
variableshave to do withthe politicaland class earlier in this paper, was the effortto generate
42 Blaut

economicdevelopmentin theThirdWorld,butto Anotheris "locus of control,"in essence thebe-

do so by means of strategiesthatwould not lead lief thatone can controlevents;thispseudo-vari-
to dramaticsocial and politicalupheavalslike na- able is a partof theexplanatory modelused by G.
tionalizationof foreignholdings,land reformand White and some of his associates in studies of
relatedattackson local elites,socialistrevolution, natural-hazard
adaptabilityby ThirdWorld,mainly
and in some areas decolonization.Scholars were rural,people (see G. White1974, 5-10; Baumann
enlistedinthiscampaignin variouswaysthatneed and Sims 1974, 28-30; Burton,Kates, and White
not concernus (althoughit should be notedthat 1978, 107; Dupreeand Roder 1974, 117; forsche-
all theseresearchworkerswereconvincedthattheir maticcritiques fromdiffering perspectives see Blaut
(our) workwas directedagainstpovertyand suf- 1984, 150-51; Mitchell1984, 57; Waddell 1977).
fering).What is crucial here is the fact thatthe Still anotherpseudo-variable,already discussed
diffusionistmodel was axiomaticformostof the here,is "traditionalism" or "thetraditional mind,"
resultingscholarship-empirical,theoretical,and a notiondeployedin diffusion research(see, e.g.,
applied. The axiom assertedin essence thatde- L. Brown 1981, 274-75; Riddell 1970, 6) and
velopmentresultsfromthe flow of modernizing elsewherein geographyto explain lack of devel-
innovationsfromthe centerto the countryside, opmentalprogressin particularlandscapes or in
thatdevelopmentresultsfromnotmuchmorethan general.At the mostgenerallevel, for instance,
the diffusionof innovationsplus a small line of Sack (1980) constructsan elaboratetheorypro-
credit.(I am oversimplifying.) posingto explaintheevolutionand cross-cultural
The information postulateitselfbecame diffu- variationof humanabilitiesto conceptualizespace,
sionistin this intellectualenvironment. Informa- bothconcrete(political,economic,physiographic)
tion-baseddiffusiontheoryassumed a two-sector and abstract,groundingthe entiretheoryin the
landscape, one part informedand incrementally diffusionist dichotomybetweenthetraditional (or
developed, the otherpartuninformed and unde- "primitive")mindand themodernmind,thefor-
veloped. Informationand developmentspread mer being childlike,ancient,superstitious,sub-
spatiallyfromone or anotherkindof center.Dis- jective, unsophisticated,nonrational,practical
tance, accessibility,and the psychologicalcondi- (nontheoretical),andcharacteristic generally ofnon-
tion of being informedor uninformedare the Westernsocieties(althoughpeasantsocietiesap-
essentialvariables.(For examplesofthisapproach parentlyadmix the two formsof mentality)(see
see Lentnek1969;Taaffe,Morrilland Gould 1963; Sack 1980, 22-23, 27, 117-38, 142-57, 167-93,
Wilbanks1972. A critiqueis givenin Blaut 1977). 197-200). Sack's construction is close to classical
But this,overall,was a mildsortof diffusionism, diffusionism in its view of the humanmind,but
troublesomemostlyforits ingenuousdisregardof it is also a typicalexample of a class of contem-
culture(and culturalgeography).Ratherquickly porarystatementsin whichthe traditional-mind-
a moreseriousformof diffusionism took hold in modern-mind dichotomyis used as an explanatory
diffusionresearchand some otherschoolsof geo- schema for culturalevolution,economic devel-
graphicresearchconcernedwithruralThirdWorld opment,and, not incidentally, ThirdWorldrural
development,e.g., the "naturalhazards" school. modernization.
Distance and accessibilityremainedas operant Traditionalism in thesetheoriesis stubborntra-
variables.But in place of theinformation variable dition,not cherishedtradition.The presumption
thereemergeda complexpsychologicalvariable, is thatsome groupsresistchangewhenchange is
describedin diffusionresearchas "adopter attri- beneficialor necessary,whileothergroups,in other
butes," whichpostulatedthatruralThirdWorld places, are not so stubbornly traditional.It is be-
people have some fundamental(thoughcurable) yondthe scope of thispaperto attempta critique
psychologicaldisabilitythatlimitsor inhibitstheir of thisview. Five commentsmustsuffice.First,
propensity to develop. itis notmethodologically properhereto arguethat
Personalitytraitsdo of course varyamong hu- individualsubjectsresistchange irrationally until
man groups,but diffusionism assertsincorrectly we have establishedthatchange is feasible and
thatsome groupspossess crucialtraitsthatpermit thatchange will benefitthe subjects;psychologi-
positivechange (development)and othergroups cal limitations areproperly invokedhereonlywhen
lack such traitsor possess themin smallermea- externallimitationshave been discounted.Sec-
sure. One of thesepseudo-traits is "achievement ond, instruments do not yetexist forconfirming
motivation" (McClelland 1961; discussed sup- theexistenceof, muchless measuring,thesepos-
portivelyin L. Brown 1981, 235, 252, 254, 274). tulatedmentalattributes or pseudo-attributes, for
 Diffusionism 43

gettingpast those barriersof status,power, cul- mainlymattersof class and politics.These forces
turaldistance,and thelike, whichcontaminate all mayvaryacrossthelandscape,butspatial(process)
studies(fromtheoutside)aboutthepsychologyof diffusionis not usually a centralissue. The hy-
ruralThirdWorldpeople. This skepticalview was pothesisthusspeaksof tendenciestowarduniform
perhapsthemajorityview amongculturalanthro- regionsin cellular landscapes, regionsin which
pologiststhreedecades ago, when manyculture- diffusioneithercovers all possible adoptersvery
and-personalitytheoristsquestioned even the quicklyor does notpenetrate thespace at all. There
seeminglyculture-neutral Rorschachprotocolsas is some empiricalevidence in supportof the hy-
valid cross-culturalinstruments (see Bock 1980, pothesis:forinstance,ultra-rapid diffusionhas been
134-37). But theopposingthesisgainedpopular- observed when inhibitingconditions were not
itybecause, in myview, itwas conformalto mod- present.9Much betterevidence, thoughdifficult
em diffusionism and the belief that,in the rural to quantifyand uninteresting to map, comes from
ThirdWorld,povertyis at leastpartlythefaultof theinnumerable cases in whichtheinhibiting con-
thepoor. Third,theemergingcritiqueof modern- ditionswere presentand therewas no diffusion
izationism, developmentism,and diffusionism and no development.
bringswithit a new perspectiveon therole of the To explain such cases of nondiffusion in rural
individualmindin development(see forinstance spaces we tend, conventionally,to blame the
Freire1972; Giroux 1981; Pinar 1974; Stea 1980) farmersthemselves:theirinaccessiblelocations,
and the role of technologicalknowledgein that theirtraditionalism, theirignorance,theirlack of
process(Hansis 1976; Johnson1977; Pearse 1980; "achievementmotivation,"and the like. But the
Wisner 1977; Yapa 1980). Fourth,to argue that farmerswill tell us thatwe are wrong,and they
membersof different cultureshave equal percep- will tell us whyif we listen.10
tual and cognitive("intellectual") capabilitiesis
not to deny the factthatpersonalityvariescross-
culturally.8 Andfifth, in agreement withMarxand Conclusion
Engels (1845-46) and G. H. Mead (1938), 1 see
the self is essentiallya social product. Why, in the last analysis, should we assume
Accessibilityis a real variablein some circum- thatthenaturalstateof affairsin any regionis to
stances,and distancemay also be significant as a have a centerfromwhichinnovations emanateand
(surrogate)variable. Both, however,are usually a periphery towardwhichtheydiffuse?Surelyall
functionsof politicaland class forces.L. Brown of us sharethebeliefthatall humancommunities
(1981) triesin essence to add socioeconomicvar- possess thesame underlying potentialto create,to
iables to the variablesof classic spatial diffusion invent,to innovate.Communitiesare distributed
theory-namely,psychologicaladopterattributes, alongsideone anotheracross a landscape, so the
information,distance, and accessibility-while premiseof humanequalityis at the same timea
acceptingcertainof the criticismsthathave been premiseof spatial equality. Spatial inequalityis
made aboutthattheory.His discussionof therole not somethingnormal, natural,inevitable,and
of diffusionagencies (public and private)is help- moral.Diffusionism makesit appearto be so. But
ful,butitneglectsthedifference betweentheories diffusionism is just a thought-style, and we can
thatpredictand those thatproposestrategiesand put it out of our minds.
it gives littlenew supportto spatialdiffusionthe-
ory as a predictor.At the same timehe pays in-
adequate attention to thevariablesof culture(and
Notes
culturalgeography).His perspectiveis not diffu-
sionist,butthediffusionism ofearlierperspectives 1. The ultimateoriginsof classical Eurocentricdiffu-
remainsunrecognizedand uncriticized.M. Brown sionismare to be soughtlong beforethebeginning
(1981) suggestsbetterways to measureinnova- of the nineteenthcentury.I argue thatthe world
model became explicit,powerful,and important in
tion-adoption behavior,butshe does notsolve the thepost-Napoleonicera because of a confluenceof
problemsdiscussed in the presentpaper. In gen- thefollowinghistoricalcircumstances,amongoth-
eral,diffusion theoristshave notsucceededin pre- ers: (1) Science was becomingsufficiently freeof
dictingor generatingthe diffusionof agricultural religiousstrictures to begintheseriousinquiryinto
origins;e.g., to searchforancienthumansand their
innovationsin theThirdWorld. culturaleffectsand to considerthe earth'shistory
Our hypothesiscalls attentionto causal forces, in a uniformitarian methodologicalframework.(2)
and developmentstrategies,that are systemic: The rapidexpansionof formaland informalcolon-
44 Blaut
ial empiresmeantthe systematicgathering,forthe
firsttime, of information (no matterhow biased)
about non-Europeans.(3) The expansionof colon-
ialism, and, beyondthat,the greatincreasein the
importanceof colonialismto Europeaneconomies,
led to effortsto formulatespecifictheoriesabout
not only the natureand historyof non-Europeans
but the overall process by whichEuropeanculture
was spreadingthroughand conqueringthe restof
the world-that is, the theoriesof classical diffu-
sionism. On the generaldoctrinesof classical dif-
fusionism,see, forexample,CUsaire1972; Galeano
1973; Panikkar 1959; Rodney 1972; Said 1979;
Turner1978; Venturi1963. On diffusionism in its
specificinfluenceon anthropology, geography,and
otheremerging disciplines,andon theschoolsknown
as "extremediffusionists" (principallythe"British
Diffusionists"and the German-Austrian Kultur-
kreis school), see, e.g., Asad 1973; Blaut 1970;
Childe 1951; Harris1968; Hudson 1977; Koepping
1983; Kroeber 1937; Lowie 1937; McKay 1943;
Radin 1965; Voget 1975, 339-59).
2. This abstractlandscapecontainsno regionsthatare
politicallydominantand thuswouldbe able to with-
hold innovationsfromdiffusion.Althoughit is the-
oreticallypossible that an innovationmightgive
one communitysuch an advantageover othersthat
it would therebybecome a permanently dominant
center,this would be a realisticpossibilityonly if
additionalattributes wereinsertedin themodel,one
of thesebeing a definition of the individualtraitas
a trulyrevolutionary innovationlackingthe ante-
cedentsthatwouldhavealreadydiffused inourmodel
(and in the real world), anotherbeing a tooth-and-
fangconceptionof culturein whichboundariesare
in effectbarricades.
3. See Amin(1973, xvi-xvii)forcomparison:"[Sierra
Leone's] 'creole' bourgeoisie. . . spreadalong the
wholeof thewesterncoast in thenineteenth century
and filledthe role of a compradorbourgeoisiefor
Britishcapital. But thisclass disappearedat theend
of thelast century,whentheEnglishexecutedtheir
main creole tradingrivals on the pretextthatthey
had taken part in the Temne and Mende revolts.
Isolated fromthe restof the Empireand relatively
abandoned,the colony fell intoa doze fromwhich
it has not yet emerged." Also see Howard 1975;
Kup 1975; Osae, Nwabara, and Odunsi 1973; Fyle
1981.
4. On thismyth,see Bhatia (1967) and Klein (1973).
On the relatedmyththattherewas an unchanging
"traditional"demographic pattern of highbirthrates 10. We can listen,for instance,to folksongslike the
and highdeathrates,whichdiffusing colonial med-
icine broke open (leading to a fall in death rates
and-because of "traditionalism" -a sustainedhigh
birthrateand thereafter overpopulation),see Klein
(1973) on deathratesand the workof Nag (1980)
showingthatbirthratesincreasedsubstantially un-
der colonialism(Collyer (1965) argues along sim-
ilarlinesforsome LatinAmericancountriesas does References
Harewood (1966) forGrenada).
5. I do not suggest thatmethodologicaland episto- Adams, W.; Van Gerven, D.; and Levy, R. 1978.
mologicalconsiderations are in anyway a substitute
forempiricalevidence.At mosttheydirectus toward
new evidence and influencethe weightingwe give Amin, Samir. 1973. Neo-colonialismin WestAfrica.
evidence in general.
6. It does notmatterforour purpose(judgingtheter-
rainoverwhichtheoriginalOld-WorldAgricultural
Revolutiontook place) whetherthe advantagesof
agricultureover hunting-gathering-fishing-shell-
fishingresultedfroma hemisphere-wide deteriora-
tion in living conditions resulting from the
environmentalchanges, whetherthe period was
witnessto an epochal advance in an uninterrupted
processofculturalevolution,or whethersome other
causal processwas at work,so long as the process
affectedall of thereasonablywarmand moistpor-
tions of the hemisphereor its effectswere trans-
mittedthroughout this zone, e.g., by eveningout
stressesthroughhumanmigration.Also embedded
in thismodel is theassumptionthattheadvantages
of agriculture wereroughlycomparable(or became
so because of stress-eveningpopulation move-
ments)across manyecological zones, fromtropical
forestto warm-winter midlatitudeforest,and from
moderatelysloping land to swamp edges and nat-
ural levees.
7. See Golson (1977) forevidence of 9,000-year-old
drained-field farmingin New Guinea, and see De-
nevan (1966) on the antiquityof raised-fieldfarm-
ing in the New World. Today, when suitableland
is available,a givenfarming groupusuallypractices
some complexmixture of systems,whichmayrange
from extensive shiftingagricultureto intensive
drained-field or wet-fieldor natural-leveeagricul-
ture.
8. There exists a diffusionist tendency(criticizedin
Blaut 1984) to applyculturallybiased teststo Third
World peoples and findthemto be inferiorto Eu-
ropeansin termsof perceptualand intellectualtraits
indicatinginnovativeness,cognitivedevelopment
(henceinferentially inventiveness), and thelike.That
this is normalparadigmaticscience can be seen,
e.g., fromthefactthatnearly10 percentof empir-
ical studiesin the Journalof Cross-CulturalPsv-
chology are reportsby white South Africansand
Europeanspurporting to show such psychological
inferiorityin black Africans.
9. The mostdramaticcases involveliteracyand adult
educationprogramsin some ThirdWorldcountries.
Often success reflectsthe use of an approach in
which people come to understandthe inhibiting
conditionsand the need to struggleagainst them
and thenliterallydemandtheinnovationand strug-
gle to acquire it (see Freire1972). A case of ultra-
rapiddiffusion of an agricultural innovationin Ven-
ezuela is discussedin Blaut (1977).
widelydiffusedPopulistsong, "The FarmerIs the
Man": "buys on credit'til thefall/Then theytake
himby thehand/And theylead himfromtheland/
And the middleman'sthe man who gets it all."
The retreatfrommigrationism. Annual Review of
Anthropology 7:483-532.
New York: MonthlyReview Press.
 Diffusionism
Asad, Talal, ed. 1973. Anthropology and the colonial
encounter.New York: HumanitiesPress.
Baumann, D., and Sims, J. 1974. Humanresponseto
the hurricane.In G. White 1974, pp. 25-30.
Bhatia, B.M. 1967. Famines in India. Bombay: Asia
PublishingHouse.
Blaikie, Piers. 1978. The theoryof thespatialdiffusion
of innovations:A spacious cul-de-sac.Progressin
Human Geography2:268-95.
Blaut, J.M. 1970. Geographicmodels of imperialism.
Antipode2(1):65-85.
. 1973. The theoryof development.Antipode
5(2):22-26.
. 1976. Where was capitalismborn? Antipode
8(2):1-11.
. 1977. Two views of diffusion.Annals of the
Associationof AmericanGeographers67:343-49.
. 1979. Some principlesof ethnogeography. In
Philosophyin geography,ed. S. Gale and G. Ols-
son, pp. 1-7. Dordrecht:Reidel Publishing.
* 1980. Nairnon nationalism.Antipode12(3): 1-
17.
* 1982. Nationalismas an autonomousforce.Sci-
ence and Society46:1-23.
1984. Modestyand themovement.In Environ-
mentalperceptionand behavior.An inventory' and
prospect,ed. T. Saarinen,D. Seaman, and J. Sell,
pp. 149-63. Chicago: Universityof Chicago, De-
partment of GeographyResearchPaper No. 209.
. In press. The national questionand colonial-
ismn.London: Zed Books.
Blaut, J. M., and Rios-Bustamante, A. 1984. Com-
mentaryon Nostrand's "Hispanos" and their
"Homeland." Annals of theAssociationof Amer-
ican Geographers74:157-64.
Bock, P. 1980. Continuitiesin psychologicalanthro-
pology. San Francisco:W. H. Freeman.
Bowen-Jones, H. 1981. Technology and the Third
World. In The Third World. Problems and per-
spectives,ed. A. Montfort,pp. 76-83. London:
Macmillan.
Brookfield, H. 1975. Interdependentdevelopment.
Pittsburgh: Universityof PittsburghPress.
Browett, John. 1980. Development,the diffusionist
paradigmand geography.Progress in Human Ge-
ographv4:56-79.
Brown, L. A. 1981. Innovationdifiision:A new per-
spective.London: Methuen.
Brown, M. A. 1981. Behavioralapproachesto thegeo-
graphicstudyof innovation diffusion:Problemsand
prospects. In Behavioral problems in geography
revisited,ed. K. Cox and R. Golledge, pp. 123-
44. New York: Methuen.
Burton, I.; Kates, R.; and White, G. 1978. The en-
vironment as hazard. New York: OxfordUniver-
sityPress.
Carter, G. 1968. Man and the land. A culturalgeog-
raphv. New York: Holt, Rinehart,and Winston.
Cesaire, Aime. 1972. Discourse on colonialism.New
York: MonthlyReview Press.
Chilcote, R. 1984. Theories of developmentand un-
derdevelopment. Boulder: WestviewPress.
Childe, V. Gordon. 1951. Social evolution.New York:
HenrySchuman.
Chisholm,Michael. 1982. Modernworlddevelopment.
Totowa, N.J.: Barnes and Noble.
45
Cohen, M. N. 1977. Thefood crisisinprehistorv.New
Haven: Yale UniversityPress.
Collyer, 0. A. 1965. Birth rates in Latin America.
Berkeley: Instituteof InternationalStudies, Uni-
versityof Californiaat Berkeley.
Denevan, William. 1966. The Aboriginalculturalge-
ographyof theLlanos de Mojos of'Bolivia. Ibero-
Americana 48. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univer-
sityof CaliforniaPress.
Dupree, H., and Roder, W. 1974. Copingwithdrought
in a preindustrial,
preliterate
farming society.In G.
White 1974, pp. 115-19.
Edmonson, M. S. 1961. Neolithicdiffusion rates.Cur-
rentAnthropology 2(2):71-86.
Foster, G. M. 1962. Traditionalcultures:And the im-
pact of technologicalchange. New York: Harper
and Row.
Frank, A. G. 1969. Sociology of developmentand un-
derdevelopmentof sociology. In Latin America:
Underdevelopment or revolution,A. G. Frank,pp.
21-94. New York: MonthlyReview Press.
Freire, Paulo. 1972. Pedagogy of theoppressed.New
York: Herderand Herder.
French, K., and Stanley, W. 1974. A game of Eu-
ropeancolonizationin Africa.Journalof Geogra-
phy 73(7):44-48.
Fyle, C. M. The historyof Sierra Leone. London: Ev-
ans Brothers.
Galeano, Eduardo. 1973. The open veins of Latin
America. New York: MonthlyReview Press.
Giroux, H. A. 1981. Ideology,culture,and theprocess
of'schooling.Philadelphia:TempleUniversity Press.
Golson, Jack. 1977. No room at the top: Agricultural
intensificationin the New Guinea Highlands. In
Sunda and Sahul: Prehistoricstudiesin Southeast
Asia, Melanesia and Australia, ed. J. Allen, J.
Golson, and R. Jones,pp. 601-38. London: Aca-
demic Press.
Gorman, Chester. 1977. A priorimodelsand Thai pre-
history:A reconsideration of thebeginningsof ag-
riculturein SoutheasternAsia. In Reed 1977, pp.
321-56.
Gould, Peter. 1969. Spatial diffusion.Associationof
AmericanGeographers,Commissionon College
Geography,Resource Paper No. 4. Washington,
D.C.: AAG.
1970. Tanzania 1920-1963: The spatialimpress
ofthemodernization process.WorldPolitics22:149-
70.
Guelke, L. 1976. Frontiersettlementin early Dutch
South Africa.Annals of theAssociationof'Ameri-
can Geographers66:25-42.
Hagen, E. 1962. The theoryof social change: How
economicgrowthbegins. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey
Press.
Hagerstrand, Torsten. 1967. Innovationdiffusion as a
spatial process. Trans. Allen Pred. Chicago: Uni-
versityof Chicago Press.
Haggett,Peter. 1983. Geography:A modernsynthesis.
3d ed. New York: Harperand Row.
Haggett, Peter, and Chorley, Richard. 1969. Net-
workanalysis in geography.London: Edward Ar-
nold.
Hansis, R. 1976. Ethnogeography and science: Viti-
culturein Argentina.Ph.D. diss., PennsylvaniaState
University.
46 Blaut
Harewood, Jack. 1966. Populationgrowthin Grenada.
Social and EconomicStudies 15:61-84.
Harris, Marvin. 1968. The rise ofanthropologicalthe-
orv. New York: Crowell.
Ho Ping-ti. 1977. The indigenousoriginsof Chinese
agriculture.In Reed 1977, pp. 413-84.
Hopkins, A. G. 1973. An economic historyof West
Africa.New York: Columbia UniversityPress.
Howard, Allan. 1975. Pre-colonialcentersand regional
systemsin Africa.Pan-AfricanJournal8(3):247-
70.
Hoyle, B. S. 1974. Spatial aspects of development.
London: JohnWiley.
Hudson, Brian. 1977. The new geographyand thenew
imperialism:1870-1918. Antipode9(1):12-19.
Johnson,Kirsten. 1977. Do as the land bids: A study
ofOtomiresourceuse on theeve of irrigation. Ph.D.
diss., GraduateSchool of Geography,Clark Uni-
versity.
Kabaker, Adina. 1977. A radiocarbonchronologyrel-
evantto the originsof agriculture.In Reed 1977,
pp. 957-80.
Kea, Ray. 1982. Settlements, trade,andpolitics in the
seventeenth-century! Gold Coast. Baltimore:Johns
HopkinsUniversityPress.
Klein, Ira. 1973. Death in India. JournalofAsian Stud-
ies 32:639-59.
Kniffen,Fred B. 1965. Folk housing:Key to diffusion.
Annals of the Association of American Geogra-
phers 55:549-77.
Koepping, Klaus-Peter. 1983. AdolfBastian and the
psychic unityof mankind. St. Lucia, Australia:
Universityof QueenslandPress.
Kroeber, AlfredL. 1937. Diffusionism.Encyclopedia
of the social sciences, vol. 5, pp. 139-42. New
York: Macmillan.
Kup, A. P. 1975. SierraLeone: A concisehistory.New
York: St. Martin'sPress.
Lattimore, 0. 1980. The peripheryas locus of inno-
vation. In Centreand periphery:Spatial variation
and politics,ed. J. Gottmann,pp. 205-9. Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications.
Leaf, M. 1979. Man, mind,and science. New York:
Columbia UniversityPress.
fromtra-
Lentnek, Barry. 1969. Economic transition
ditionalto commercialagriculture:The case of El
Llano, Mexico. AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmer-
ican Geographers59:65-84.
. 1971. LatinAmericanpeasantryin transition to
modernfarming.Proceedings,ConferenceofLatin
AmericanistGeographers 1:161-66.
Levy-Bruhl,Lucien. [1910] 1966. How nativesthink.
Reprint.New York: WashingtonSquare Press.
Lowie, Robert. 1937. The historyof ethnologicalthe-
orv. New York: Rinehart.
Malinowski, B. 1927. The life of culture.In Culture:
The division controversy, ed. G. E. Smith. New
York: Norton.
Marx, K., and Engels, F. [1845-46] 1956. The Ger-
nmanideology. 3d ed. Moscow: ProgressPublish-
ers.
McClelland, D. 1961. The achievingsociety Prince-
ton: Van Nostrand.
McEvedy, C. 1980. The Penguinatlas ofAfricanhis-
torv.London: PenguinBooks.
McKay, D. V. 1943. Colonialism in the Frenchgeo-
graphicalmovement.GeographicalReview33:214-
32.
Mead, G. H. 1938. Thephilosophyoftheact. Chicago:
Universityof Chicago Press.
Mitchell, J. 1984. Hazard perceptionstudies:Conver-
gentconcernsand divergentapproachesduringthe
past decade. In Environmentalperceptionand be-
havior: An inventory and prospect, ed. T. Saari-
nen, D. Searnon,and J. Sell, pp. 33-60. Chicago:
Universityof Chicago, Departmentof Geography
ResearchPaper No. 209.
Nag, Moni. 1980. How modernization can also increase
CurrentAnthropology
fertility. 21:571-88.
Newbury, C. W. 1969. Trade and authorityin West
Africafrom 1850 to 1880. In Colonialism in Af-
rica: 1870-1960, ed. L. Gann and P. Duggan, pp.
66-99. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Nostrand, Richard. 1975. Mexican Americanscirca
1850. AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGeog-
raphers65:378-90.
Osae, T. A.; Nwabara, S. N.; and Odunsi, A. T. 0.
1973. A shorthistoryof WestAfrica. New York:
Hill and Wang.
Panikkar, K. M. 1959. Asia and Westerndominance.
London: Macmillan.
Pearse, Andrew. 1980. Seeds ofplenty,seeds of want:
Social and economicimplicationsofthegreenrev-
olution.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Pedersen, P. 0. 1970. Innovationdiffusionwithinand
between national urban systems. Geographical
Analysis2:203-54.
Pinar, W., ed. 1974. Heightenedconsciousness,cul-
turalrevolution,and curriculumtheory.Berkeley:
McCutchan.
Radin, Paul. [1933] 1965. The methodand theoryof
ethnology.Reprint.New York: Basic Books.
Ratzel, Friedrich. 1896 (1885-1888). The Historyof
Mankind[Volkerkunde],vol. I. London: Macmil-
lan.
Reed, Charles A., ed. 1977. Origins of agriculture.
The Hague: Mouton.
Reichman, S., and Hasson, S. 1984. A cross-cultural
diffusionof colonization:FromPosen to Palestine.
Annals of the Association qf American Geogra-
phers 74:57-70.
Riddell, Barry. 1970. The spatial dynamicso1 mod-
ernizationin Sierra Leone. Evanston:Northwest-
ernUniversityPress.
Rindos, D. 1984. The originsof agriculture.An evo-
lutionaryperspective.Orlando: Academic Press.
Rodney, Walter. 1972. How Europe underdeveloped
Africa. London: Bogle L'Ouverture;and Dar es
Salaam: Tanzania PublishingHouse.
Rogers, Everett. 1962. Diffusion of innovations. New
York: Free Press.
Rogers, Everett, and Shoemaker, F. 1971. Commu-
nicationofinnovations.A cross-culturalapproach.
New York: Free Press. (Rev. ed. of Rogers 1962).
Rouse, Irving. 1961. Commentson Edmonson's " Neo-
lithicDiffusionRates." CurrentAnthropology 2:96.
Rowley, G. 1983. Space, territory and competition-
Israel and the West Bank. In Pluralismand polit-
ical geography:People, territoryand state,ed. N.
Kliot and S. Waterman,pp. 187-200. London:
Croom Helm.
 Diffusionism
Sack, Robert. 1980. Conceptionsof space in social
thought.London: Macmillan.
Said, Edward W. 1979. Orientalism.New York: Vin-
tage.
Smith,G. Eliot. [1933]. 1971. The diffisionofculture.
Reprint.PortWashington,N.Y.: KennikatPress.
Stea, D. 1980. Toward a cross-cultural environmental
psychology. Proceedings, 17th Interarnerican
Congressof Psychology,Lima, Peru.
Stevens, R., and Lee, Y. 1979. A spatial analysisof
agriculturalintensityin a Basotho villageof south-
ern Africa.The ProfessionalGeographer31:177-
83.
Taaffe, E. J.; Morrill, R. L.; and Gould, P. R. 1963.
Transportexpansionin underdevelopedcountries:
A comparative analysis. Geographical Review
53:503-39.
Tarde, Gabriel. 1903. The laws ofimitation. New York:
HenryHolt.
Tiedemann, Clifford, and Van Doren, Carlton S.
1964. The diffusionof hybridseed corn in Iowa:
A spatial diffusionstudy.Michigan State Univer-
sity, Institutefor CommunityDevelopmentand
Services, BulletinB-44.
Turner, Bryan. 1978. Marx and the end of Oriental-
ismn.London: Allen and Unwin.
Vavilov, N. I. 1951. The origin,variation,immunity,
and breedingofcultivatedplants. New York: Ron-
ald Press.
Venturi, Franco. 1963. The historyof the conceptof
"oriental despotism" in Europe. The Journalof
theHistoryof Ideas 24:133-43.
Vishnu-Mittre.1978. Originand historyof agriculture
in theIndian Subcontinent. JournalofHuman Ev-
olution7:31-36.
47
Voget, F. 1975. A historyof ethnology.New York:
Holt, Rinehartand Winston.
Waddell, E. 1977. The hazardsof scientism:A review
article.Human Ecology 5:69-76.
Weber, Max. [1916] 1951. The religionof China. Re-
print.New York: Free Press.
. [1904-1905] 1958. Theprotestant ethicand the
spirit of capitalism. Reprint.New York: Scrib-
ner's.
Wendorf,F., and Schild, R. 1980. Prehistorvof the
EasternSahara. New York: Academic Press.
White, G. 1974. Naturalhazards research:Concepts,
methods,and policyimplications.In G. White,ed.,
1974, pp. 3-16.
White,G., ed. 1974. Naturalhazards: Local, national,
global. New York: OxfordUniversityPress.
White, Lynn Jr. 1962. Medieval technology and social
change. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
1968. Machina ex Deo: Essays in thedvnamism
of Westernculture.Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press.
Wilbanks,T. J. 1972. Accessibility
andtechnicalchange
in northernIndia. Annals of the Association of
AmericanGeographers62:427-36.
Wisner, B. 1977. Man-madedroughtin EasternKenya.
In Land-use and development, ed. P. O'Keefe and
B. Wisner.London: InternationalAfricanInstitute.
Yapa, Lakshman. 1977. The GreenRevolution:A dif-
fusionmodel. Annals of theAssociationof Amer-
ican Geographers67:350-59.
. 1980. Diffusion,development,and ecopolitical
economy. In Innovation research and public pol-
icy, ed. J. A. Agnew, pp. 101-41. Syracuse:De-
partment of Geography,SyracuseUniversity.
Yapa, Lakshman, and Mayfield,R. 1978. Non-adop-
tion of innovations:Evidence fromdiscriminant
analysis.EconomicGeography54:145-56.